THE VALUE OF BODIES IS NOT A CONSTANT
In my “LAWS OF POLITICS” (http://www.lawsofpolitics.com/), #34, I say, “The right to life is a form of property right. The body is the property of the spiritual being who is using it.”.
The body is the vehicle. The spiritual being is the driver.
One cannot make a law that murdering an old or sick or disabled person is a lesser crime than murdering someone who is young, strong, and beautiful or handsome.
Nevertheless it is very obvious that some bodies are more valuable and some bodies are less valuable. Sometimes one sees a weak, sick, old body, and one thinks, gee, if I had that body, I would really not want to continue with that body. On the other hand, someone who is 15 or 20, who is healthy and good looking, is all set at the start of adulthood to have an active and productive life, and hopefully a loving and joyful life.
Bodies do not all have the same value, any more than cars or houses or any other material possession. A person’s body is his most important material possession.
THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF SEEDS
When a sperm from a man joins with an ovum from a woman, the zygote is formed. This is the moment of conception. This is the one-celled embryo, which will grow to become the fetus, then the baby, then the child, and finally the adult. The sperm and the ovum can each be considered a “half-baby”. Their union creates the zygote cell which becomes the baby.
In a normal ejaculation of sperm by a man, there are roughly 30 million sperms. Of this vast multitude, at most one joins with the ovum. The other 30 million, less one, all die. If we consider each of these to be a half-baby, then this adds up to 15 million dead babies – a vast massacre of children. And this is even when assuming a successful conception.
People love to see a great oak tree. When it dies or is killed, they feel a tragic loss. This same oak tree will carpet the ground underneath it with tens of thousands of acorns. Each acorn is an embryonic oak tree. Does each acorn have the same value as the great oak tree itself?
A maple tree will carpet the ground with its little winged seeds.
When we eat fruit or grain or eggs, we are eating – and killing – seeds, small embryonic lives.
Animals commonly produce their babies, not one at a time, but in batches, called “litters”. Despite all the talk of “animal rights”, government agencies kill very large numbers of cats and dogs, simply because there are too many of them.
God – or nature – has arranged things so that there is a vast multitude of zygotes or seeds or embryos for each individual plant or animal which grows to maturity. This is nature’s way of ensuring that the species will survive. It is a given – one could call it a “law of nature” – that only a tiny fraction of zygotes or seeds or embryos will grow to adulthood and achieve maturity.
Therefore, the value of a zygote or seed or embryo is only a tiny fraction of the value of a mature adult.
NO SPIRITUAL BEING HAS A BIG INVESTMENT IN AN UNBORN CHILD
When does the spiritual being take over the body? This is hard to know. But it seems likely that this usually occurs shortly before birth.
If the unborn child is killed before the spiritual being takes it over, then no spiritual being has suffered any loss at all. If the unborn child is killed after the spiritual being takes it over, there is still at most only a few months which that spiritual being has invested in that body.
Therefore, the spiritual being, if any, who is deprived of his body by having it killed before birth, is suffering only a very minor loss.
This small loss needs to be weighed against the needs, rights, and claims of the mother and father who choose not to have a child at this time.
A marriage between a man and a woman who love each other is a beautiful and joyful thing, both for the bride and for the groom. On the other hand, a marriage which is forced upon a woman, against her will, is not in fact marriage, but slavery. It is an abomination which is rightly hated by all good men. It condemns the woman to a lifetime of servitude and misery.
Similarly a child born to a couple who want the child is a joy and a delight to both parents. They assume the duties of parenthood eagerly. They happily take upon themselves the commitment to raise the child to adulthood.
But a child born to parents who do not want the child is a dreadful burden. Either or both parents may have plans and ambitions which are incompatible with the responsibilities of raising a child. It is a 20 year commitment. It may destroy their hopes and dreams. The child will be unwelcome. This will not bring happiness either to the parents or to the child.
The loss to the spiritual being who takes over the new child body is only a few months of basically sleeping. And if the baby body is killed before any spiritual being takes it over, then there is no loss at all.
The loss to the unwilling parents is 20 years of labor and the loss of their hopes and dreams and ambitions. And this is for two – both the mother and the father.
I think the right choice is obvious.
WHERE DOES THE UNBORN CHILD GET HIS RIGHTS?
The attraction between men and women is very strong. There is no need for legislation to require men and women to have sex with each other.
However, it is also true that if a woman is forced to have sex with a man when she does not want to do so, she has very strong objections. This is called “rape” and laws are passed against it. This is also called “sex slavery”.
Similarly the urge of men and women to have children is very strong. There is no need for legislation to require men and women to have children. In the normal course of events, parents assume the burdens and responsibilities of parenthood with joy, and their children give them love, joy, and happiness for many years.
However, if a woman or a couple has a child which is not wanted, that can be extremely upsetting and extremely disruptive to the life and plans of the woman or the couple.
Thus there is a definite parallel between being forced to have unwanted sex and being forced to have an unwanted child.
Those who believe that abortion is very wrong and should be outlawed claim that the unborn child, starting at conception, has the same Right to Life as any other human being. They argue that the responsibility, the obligation, the duty, and the commitment to raise the child to adulthood falls fully on both parents at the moment of conception. And this obligation falls on them whether they want the child or not.
But abortion is a theological issue. Man is not a body. He is a spiritual being. He has a body. The body is the property of the spiritual being.
In order to correctly analyze this situation it is necessary to distinguish between the rights of the body and the rights of the spiritual being.
The body does not have any rights. Only the spiritual being has rights.
Does an automobile have rights? No. The driver of the automobile has rights. Does a house have rights? No. The person who lives in the house has rights.
The basic theological error made by those who want to outlaw abortion is failing to distinguish between the spiritual being and the body. As a result, they fail to distinguish between the creation of a spiritual being and the creation of a body. The spiritual being is eternal. It is not created ever, at any time. The body is created through the routine and well known biological process of reproduction.
There is some logic in saying that the moment of creation of the body is the moment of conception, when the sperm unites with the ovum forming the zygote. But even that has to be qualified by saying that the zygote was created by assembling the parts which already existed prior to the moment of conception. It is at least similar to trying to identify the moment of creation of a house. There are carpenters on the site hammering nails into boards and putting up the frame of the house. First it is a pile of lumber and nails. Later it is a house. At what exact moment did the house come into existence?
It is generally agreed that parents have the responsibility and the obligation to raise their children. To estimate the quantity of this obligation, let us estimate that raising a child to adulthood is a 20 year project which involves a great deal of work by both the mother and the father. So let us say that the claim of the child to be raised by the parents is a claim to roughly 40 years of labor, that is, 20 years for each parent.
Those who oppose abortion say that the child gains this claim to 40 years of parental labor at the moment of conception. They also say that the child gains this claim even if the parents did not intend the conception and do not want the child.
What is the exchange? What is the trade which the child makes which gives him the right to receive 40 years of labor from his parents? Why is this not involuntary servitude of the parents? From the viewpoint of the parents, what distinguishes this from slavery?
In my ‘LAWS OF POLITICS”, #22, I say, “The liberty of one person is limited only by the liberty of others. There is no right to murder, to steal, to conquer, or to enslave.”.
The Liberty of the zygote, of the newly formed embryo, includes the Right to Life. So the zygote claims 40 years of labor from the parents. If this is involuntary on the part of the parents, how is this not stealing from the parents? How is this not enslaving the parents?
The normal exchange with parents is that the parents get the child, and they want the child. They get the love and joy of raising a child. They have a strong desire for the child. Everybody wins.
But what if a young man and a young woman are in love, and they have sex, and they conceive a child, but the child is not wanted. They have plans. Their plans will be ruined if they have to raise a child.
How is it that the newly formed embryo has a claim on 40 years of labor from the parents?
If there is no spiritual being who has taken possession of the embryo, then there is no third party to make the claims of the child. The embryo is no more than a vegetable or an animal. It is a piece of meat with no soul. It has no rights. It has no claim.
If a spiritual being has taken possession of the embryo, then what are his claims on the parents? Did the parents make a contract with him? No, they did not. Has he done anything for the parents? No, he has not. Has he made any great investment in this new embryonic body? No, he has not. He has at most rested and slept for a few months in the mother’s womb. Does this give him a claim on 40 years of labor from the parents? I think not.
* * * * * * *
Comments